Topeka  Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee approved a 4 percent cut in state funding to higher education. The proposed reduction would total $29.2 million, including a cut at Kansas University of nearly $10 million.

Rep. Ward Cassidy, R-St. Francis, who proposed the cut from Gov. Sam Brownback's plan, said it would help balance the state budget. "This will give us some money to work with," Cassidy said.

He said he hoped that at the end of this legislative session, lawmakers can review whether additional money is available for higher education.

"There is a lot of pain with this cut," said Rep. Jerry Henry of Atchison, who is the ranking Democrat on the committee.

He said such a cut would cause higher tuition increases, price some graduating seniors from access to post-secondary education, and hurt economic development.

When Cassidy first proposed the 4 percent cut, Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, tried to reduce it to a 2 percent cut, but her effort failed.

Republican leaders are trying to craft a state spending plan that doesn't factor in revenue in Brownback’s tax plan because that plan has not gained acceptance in the Legislature yet.

Brownback, a Republican, has proposed reducing individual state income tax rates during the next four years but keeping the state sales tax at 6.3 percent. Under current law, the sales tax rate is supposed to decrease to 5.7 percent on July 1. Brownback also has proposed eliminating homeowner deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes.

Tim Caboni, KU's vice chancellor for public affairs, said such a cut, as proposed in Appropriations, "really jeopardizes the role we play in fueling economic growth and development in the state."

A 4 percent cut would equal $5.48 million at KU and $4.28 million at the KU Medical Center for a total of $9.76 million. It would put state funding at KU below 2006 levels.

Asked whether the reduction would impact tuition rates, Caboni said, "There is an absolute relationship between a level of state support and tuition increases." He noted that state funding per student has decreased 40 percent since 1999.

Caboni said if the 4 percent cut were instituted, KU would look at ways to reduce expenses. "We have been so good at reducing our business expenses. The question is: How much more can you cut without having to cut the core functions of the institution," he said.

Comments

More political games were Brownie makes a stand for higher education then has his troops in the legislature take a machete to the higher education budget. More tax cuts for the wealthy and less money to support education. At least it shows he's a little self conscious about stealing all the money from the poor, middle class and upper middle class to give it to the obscenely rich. For a while there it looked like he thought stealing all the money for the rich was something he should be proud of.

Oh, I see. It's the "obscenely" rich. Not the really, really rich? What about the merely vulgar rich? Is obscenely richer than profanely? If a person is "rolling in money," is that obscene?

The argument that rich people steal from the poor and middle class is no more valid than saying poor people enjoy living on government assistance. Although I am sure you can find avaricious rich people and lazy poor people, making these obtuse accusations serves no purpose. Put forward a lucid defense of retaining the funding and people will at least listen. To go on these blogs and spew, yes spew, ignorance is dishonest discourse and only undermines your position.

In a free market, the rich earn their money by providing goods and services that free people willingly spend their hard earned money on.

In a Democrat's Dreamland, the rich are the ones who know people in Washingtion, who can get their products and services mandated, and their competition hurt by regulation that favors them but hurts their competition, etc. Or, who work for the govt, so can union together (in their by-definition monopoly of service) and demand raises when everyone else in the nation is cutting (except the govt-connected rich).

That's just what the rich are doing. They don't think they have enough cash, so they are buying elections and politicians and stacking the odds. It's not that those who have little are not working hard for their money, it is that the game is rigged. In the US, the top 1% earn 25% of the income and have over 40% of the wealth. The bottom 80% of the population have less than 8% of the wealth. The tax code continues to be manipulated to facilitate the rich taking a higher and higher percentage of the wealth. The rich are "earning" money by buying influence to change laws and policies. We need to change the laws to stop favoring wealth accumulation. The rich don't pay as much tax as the middle class. I'm sure you will argue that the rich do pay their fair share, but if you look at the tax rate on total earnings (no just "income") it is obvious that the rich pay a lower percentage rate. Brownie's new policies are designed to further favor the wealthy and make up for the shortfall by effectively raising rates on the lower and middle classes.

Oh, yeah. The "rich" really bought that presidential election, huh? I'm curious. Exactly how much money do you kick into the public coffers? I'm talking about income tax, federal and state, personal property tax, tax assessed on neighborhood improvements. If you aren't paying something, and I suspect your tax rate is negligible, most everybody else around you subsidizes the public services that you enjoy. So when you're regurgitating the left's mantra of "the rich aren't paying the fair share," maybe you should be thinking about who's paying your share.

I'm not hitting the alternative minimum rate ceiling and I am able to put aside some % of income into 401k that is tax sheltered. I also get to write off some mortgage interest, but other than that, I'm in the top tax bracket for income. I pay well above average in property tax. So, I'm one of the people who is carrying the load for the "rich" because they don't pay their share. It's not just the poor who suffer from the wealthy not paying their share, it's the middle and especially the upper middle class who have to make up most of the difference. It's a mistake for the middle and upper middle to think the poor are the one's they are subsidizing.

The rich didn't need to buy the presidential election. They own both major parties. Obama may rant a little about the wealthy needing to pay more, but little of what he proposes has much impact on the extremely wealthy. He still acts as though he buys into the myth that low taxes on the rich help the economy. The Obama administration has made no effort to challenge low capital gains taxes. They have done nothing to challenge the carried interest deduction. All of the Democrats in Congress rely on big money from wealthy and corporate donors and the President does too. Wealth accumulation is not a partisan issue. Just about everyone in office has already sold their soul to the corporate industrial greed machine to get elected in the first place.

If you are in the top tax bracket, I would then consider you to be "rich". I heard a definition of the word "rich" many years ago. A rich "person" is someone with more money that what I have! Where do you want to draw the line? Only in Lawrence, Kansas could one find some many arguments between the "haves" and "have nots".

I must correct my earlier statement. I just looked it up. I'm not in the top 35% tax bracket. I'm in the next one down, 33%. I would argue that I'm not really rich because I'm not able to take advantage of most of the tax dodges that the really rich have. I would further argue that I still pay a significantly higher percentage of my total earnings in taxes than the average multimillionaire.

Wrong. Many of the best American universities are state funded, and many of those were land grant universities from the 1800s. University of Illinois, University of Michigan. University of Ohio, just to name a few.

There have always been private schools for the rich and the elite. Americans in their wisdom have long known that an educated people is a people that can govern themselves, and hence they have funded public educational institutions.

Nebraska also has a higher ranked university than any in Kansas, which makes a grand slam for bordering states. But why should Kansas have a university as good as those in Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado, or Nebraska anyway?

KU is already ranked lower than universities in 33 states and Washington, DC, so why should it matter if another round of cuts drops KU even lower. Idaho, Alaska, and Wyoming aren't bad company when you're trying to impress prospective businesses with your educated workforce.

Why shouldn't the legislature cut funding to higher ed, drop KU further in the rankings, and make tuition more expensive for Kansas students. Less access to and lower quality of education are to be expected in a third-world state.

Full disclosure: I have a degree from KU. I am not employed in education. I am a Republican.

The single most important aspect of good economic development is a well educated work force. This includes, Universities, community colleges and trade schools. To reduce the funding of State schools is idiotic. It exactly the opposite of what this State needs. The current group of Republicans in this state are destroying it. Starting with the governor, they are short sighted, ignorant and have no plan for moving forward. There are examples of colleges in nearby states that are finding ways to create incentives for out of state students to be brought in at favorable tuition rates in an effort to encourage relocation to the region. In Kansas, we chase them away.

In the past few years, I have spent a lot of time in California where they have a terrible governor and legislature. Democrats that are running the State into the ground. Kansas is the example of the Republicans doing the exact same thing.

republicans, the crumbling blocks of society. Four percent here four percent there and the next thing you know, we have the foundation for going head to head with the third world countries. Now that does't mean that some people won't be doing quite well in the republicans dream world, just not the poor and the new poor, formerly the middle class.

Higher education costs have way outpaced the rate of inflation, just like health care costs. My opinion only, but part of that is because of the ease of receiving student loans, so universities charge more knowing students can get student loans, and bigger & bigger endowments from private individuals, corporations, & federal grants. I don't live in KS anymore, I live in CA, where the entire state economy is totally out of whack. I don't know enough about the Governor's / Republicans' tax plan to say it's perfect, but sometimes the only way to create efficiencies is to slow down the money flow from the spigot.

I thought the state under our esteemed leadership was on a growth path. That to make our state even more attractive than it already is to out of state businesses and people, we would be increasing funding to education at all levels to show what our priorities are.

As you sit here blaming republicans for everything please remember the 1000's of federal employees Obama is laying off or forcing to work shorter weeks making it impossible to make ends meet, or the soldiers who lose tuition assistance while watching illegal immigrants receive financial aid... What's wrong with America is that we sit here blaming one party!!! It wasn't one party that got this country in this mess, it was all of us!!! The govt. has convinced us that we have to be defined by one party or another instead of doing what we know to be morally right!!

"As you sit here blaming republicans for everything please remember......"
Please remember all three branches of government in Kansas are overwhelming controlled by the republican party. Pretty easy to see where the buck stops.

"1000's of federal employees Obama is laying off......."
Pretty big leap to blame this on Obama.

".......instead of doing what we know to be morally right!!...."
The republicans "know" that what they are doing is morally right because they own "morally right"

Nope, wrong again. I am capable of discerning culpability. I agree that carrying on the blame game is used to distract from the reality but that doesn't give a blanketed immunity to culpability. I think your the one that is confused. Your playing the blame game and then excusing yourself by claiming your not. There are some very clear policies and ideologies that can't be spun into an alternative reality to those who are paying attention. My comment on Obama simply corrected your "blame game" comment about Obama. I am no fan of Obama. He is plenty wishy washy without making stuff up about him.

How is the laying off of federal employees (non military) not his fault??? Tell me you blame Bush 5.5 years later lol... If you seriously live in a world where all the problems were created by republicans then you have lost your mind..

Because he is trying to compromise with republicans and part of that means he has to do things he wouldn't otherwise do. Explain to me how you blame Obama for laying off federal employes. Your just doing exactly what you are claiming not to be doing while blaming others.

The article is about republicans imposing limitations on higher education. It isn't about democrats or anyone else. Why do you find it so troubling that my comment is directly related to the article?

I blame the last 40 years of officials not doing what was right!! You cant get over me hating Obama for doing nothing even when he had both houses!!! Why is this country giving money away overseas and cutting federal employees?? Why can't a soldier go to school yet an illegal immigrant can get student loans?? Why is your blame only directed at republicans???

Ok, reality 79, you couldn't hold back anymore. That post is as "blame game" as blame game gets. You don't get a pass by pretending your not doing the blame game. You are doing what a lot of my republican friends do. When you point something out that even they can't deny, it then becomes "Oh, well their all doing it". Get yourself a little smaller brush. Gotta go.

People complain about roads, police services, tuition increases, and on and on, but heaven forbid you actually expect them to pay taxes that will finance the means by which their complaints will be fixed. That's just crazy talk!

You just hit the nail on the head and let me make it flush w/the board. once you start doling out money, everyone expects it in perpetuity. Once you give something to someone, it's become an expectation and you're a terrible person if you cut it off.

I'll be fair and say maybe a 4% cut at one time is too hard to absorb...maybe keeping spending at the same actual dollar level for 2-3 years might be an easier pill to swallow.